My suggestion would be along the lines of active members from each community votes for curators, and the highly ranked curators then have higher influence over the reward pool.
This sure to a be a nice idea but with the creation of multiple communities daily, it will kind of be hard to pick who or which community actually deserves to get the delegation and will he/she act on the best interest of the site or solely base on the community they control.
The concept of delegation doesn't tie in. The community decides for themselves who are the best curators, and rewards are distributed accordingly. If the curators don't act in the best interest of the community, votes will be removed.
For that reputation voting, bots will need to be excluded, or accounts like @berniesanders will have all the rep. I will be interested in seeing how that is managed. Several witnesses have argued vehemently with me that it isn't possible, while I pointed out that far lesser programmers than Stinc employs have managed to exclude bots.
While complete exclusion of bots and socks is desirable from such a mechanism, perfection is the enemy of good enough.
I'll settle for good enough.
Good enough has great value in itself. I agree.
Okay thanks for your response and clarification
Meaning, the curator will lose his/her influence to the community?